[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120322203658.GC6589@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:36:58 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Regression introduced by
bfcfaa77bdf0f775263e906015982a608df01c76 (vfs: use 'unsigned long' accesses
for dcache name comparison and hashing)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:24:45PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>
> OK, full_name_hash()/hash_name() definitely have a mismatch and it's on the
> names of length 8*n: trivial experiment shows that we have
> name hash_name full_name_hash
> a 61 61
> ab 6261 6261
> abc 636261 636261
> abcd 64636261 64636261
> abcdabc 64c6c4c2 64c6c4c2
> abcdabcd efcead5 c8c6c4c2
> abcdabcd9 efceb0e efceb0e
>
> Linus, which way do you prefer to shift it? Should hash_name() change to
> match full_name_hash() or should it be the other way round?
>
> What happens is that you get multiplication by 9 and adding 0 in the former,
> after having added the last full word. In the latter we add the last full
> word, see that there's nothing left and bugger off.
Guys, could you check if this fixes it?
diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
index 13e6a1f..7451d6f8 100644
--- a/fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/namei.c
@@ -1439,10 +1439,10 @@ unsigned int full_name_hash(const unsigned char *name, unsigned int len)
for (;;) {
a = *(unsigned long *)name;
- hash *= 9;
if (len < sizeof(unsigned long))
break;
hash += a;
+ hash *= 9;
name += sizeof(unsigned long);
len -= sizeof(unsigned long);
if (!len)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists